User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 31

Thread: yellow science

  1. #9
    Let's positive thinking! seedjar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Olympia, Washington
    Posts
    4,064
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think it's kind of a weak argument to say that scientists only point to global warming because it's profitable. Global warming was an unpopular crackpot theory (with lots of solid, compelling evidence) for a long time before lobbyists and energy companies turned it into a revenue-generating buzzword.
    As much as I've heard arguing against the evidence for global warming, I've never heard a single refutation (sensical or non) of the theory. It's already known that increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will increase its reflectivity and insulating capacity; that's simple chemistry. You can complain all you want about previous climate trends but that won't change anything about the nature of the phenomenon; you could also argue that because you've never crashed a car while drunk, alcohol only negligibly impairs your ability to drive. Who cares if the world isn't ending in 20 years? 20, 100, 1000 - it doesn't matter. I don't want to do anything that hastens the process, even if it's only by a few months against thousands or even millions of years. I've just got this stupid sentimental notion that it might be nice for my genes to be around for more than three more generations. For centuries, it didn't matter that we just dumped garbage outside of town, but more recently there's more people and more garbage, and now waste management is a real problem. (The same could be said of sanitation, but the scale is even more disproportionate.)
    The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of "an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure."
    The problem here is that global warming is hardly a hypothesis. I don't have to come up with some speculative hypothesis to assert that dropping potassium metal into clean water will cause an explosion; we can already infer from the known rules of physics and chemistry that this will happen. Likewise, heating an insulated body is already a well-understood phenomenon. I'd like to see a scientist enumerate the ways that we could continue to heat and insulate the earth without appreciably altering local and global climates. (My hypothesis would be that there are many more ways for global warming to be true than there are for it to be false.)
    Another example; driving a few miles over the recommended distance between maintenance probably won't kill your car. So, you could say that the recommended distance is, say, 3005 miles instead of 3000. But then, the chance of something bad happening doesn't change much as you go from 3005 to 3010, either. So why is there a limit at all? Even if you don't notice the difference, human activity does add to the total amount of heat going into the earth's atmosphere. Assuming, for the moment, that the greenhouse effect is utter hogwash, we still have to deal with the additional energy that comes from all the stuff we burn; there were no combustion engines, iron smelters or nuclear reactors going 10,000 years ago, and that's a lot of extra heat. The air in your garage is constantly in a state of chemical and energetic flux; the gas mixture changes, the temperature changes, etc. So why don't you stay shut inside when your car engine is running? There's still a chance that there will be a spontaneous increase in oxygen and decrease in carbon monoxide that will balance out the contributions of the exhaust; besides, you could still breathe fine when you first started it up. Two minutes later, why worry? You've already been coughing for a while; that's probably normal. And dizziness is known to come and go - it'll pass this time too. But then, what do you know? You've killed yourself.
    ~Joe

    PS - Since when was the WSJ a trustworthy source of scientific objectivity? Even when it comes to finance, half their content is editorial.

    PPS - Anybody check the credentials of the author? I don't find it very assuring that Googling him leads to a refrigeration business and discovery.org...
    o//~ Livin' like a bug ain't easy / My old clothes don't seem to fit me /
    I got little tiny bug feet / I don't really know what bugs eat /
    Don't want no one steppin' on me / Now I'm sympathizin' with fleas /
    Livin' like a bug ain't easy / Livin' like a bug ain't easy... o//~

  2. #10
    BigBella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SF, CA
    Posts
    2,972
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That there is no dissent and that there is a "scientific fundamentalism" circulating around is hard to deny. Some of the arguments against "man-made " global warming stem from the problems associated with climate models. There was even one comment, admitting the por results but suggesting that when all the spurious models were combined, there was some suggestion that global warming was occuring . . .

    Also, the role of the sun is seldom considered. Most seem to think its a ******* lightbulb.

    There are skeptics and lettered one to be found, among them:

    http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/...of_belief.html

    They have no love of dogma -- no matter from whom -- there . . .
    “Sì perché l'autorità dell'opinione di mille nelle scienze non val per una scintilla di ragione di un solo . . ."

    -- Galileo "Biff" Galilei

  3. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That there is no dissent and that there is a "scientific fundamentalism" circulating around is hard to deny.
    Then you won't mind providing proof to back up your claims that the acceptance is due to anything beyond evidence.

    Some of the arguments against "man-made " global warming stem from the problems associated with climate models. There was even one comment, admitting the por results but suggesting that when all the spurious models were combined, there was some suggestion that global warming was occuring . . .
    Um, no. Wrong. Very, very wrong. No climate model has *failed* to predict global warming unless massively erroneous figures were used as input (inputs are based on actual measurable physical constants, so you know).

    Oh, and how do you account for the 1988 computer model that *precisely matches* the 20 years of temperature records since?

    Also, the role of the sun is seldom considered. Most seem to think its a ******* lightbulb.
    Where are you getting your information? The Children's Coloring Book Guide to Climatology?

    We have extensively examined the sun's effects, and there are several satellites out there right now measuring just that.

    Oh, and so you know, the sun's output (as measured DIRECTLY by satellites) hasn't significantly changed in 20 years.

    They have no love of dogma -- no matter from whom -- there . . .
    And I have no love of willful ignorance. Their "expert" is a chemist, not a climatologist, and is no more qualified to critique global warming than he is to perform open-heart surgery.

    On top of that, for all his petty and inaccurate gripes about clouds and models, he neglects to note that a model made in 1988 predicted the subsequent 20 years of global climate change PERFECTLY. We're talking within one percent accuracy. And that was a model run on computers with less power than you cell phone.

    So, if models are wrong, how can they predict the future with such accuracy?

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  4. #12
    BigBella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SF, CA
    Posts
    2,972
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by seedjar View Post
    I think it's kind of a weak argument to say that scientists only point to global warming because it's profitable. Global warming was an unpopular crackpot theory (with lots of solid, compelling evidence) for a long time before lobbyists and energy companies turned it into a revenue-generating buzzword.
    As much as I've heard arguing against the evidence for global warming, I've never heard a single refutation (sensical or non) of the theory. It's already known that increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will increase its reflectivity and insulating capacity; that's simple chemistry. You can complain all you want about previous climate trends but that won't change anything about the nature of the phenomenon; you could also argue that because you've never crashed a car while drunk, alcohol only negligibly impairs your ability to drive. Who cares if the world isn't ending in 20 years? 20, 100, 1000 - it doesn't matter. I don't want to do anything that hastens the process, even if it's only by a few months against thousands or even millions of years. I've just got this stupid sentimental notion that it might be nice for my genes to be around for more than three more generations. For centuries, it didn't matter that we just dumped garbage outside of town, but more recently there's more people and more garbage, and now waste management is a real problem. (The same could be said of sanitation, but the scale is even more disproportionate.)

    The problem here is that global warming is hardly a hypothesis. I don't have to come up with some speculative hypothesis to assert that dropping potassium metal into clean water will cause an explosion; we can already infer from the known rules of physics and chemistry that this will happen. Likewise, heating an insulated body is already a well-understood phenomenon. I'd like to see a scientist enumerate the ways that we could continue to heat and insulate the earth without appreciably altering local and global climates. (My hypothesis would be that there are many more ways for global warming to be true than there are for it to be false.)
    Another example; driving a few miles over the recommended distance between maintenance probably won't kill your car. So, you could say that the recommended distance is, say, 3005 miles instead of 3000. But then, the chance of something bad happening doesn't change much as you go from 3005 to 3010, either. So why is there a limit at all? Even if you don't notice the difference, human activity does add to the total amount of heat going into the earth's atmosphere. Assuming, for the moment, that the greenhouse effect is utter hogwash, we still have to deal with the additional energy that comes from all the stuff we burn; there were no combustion engines, iron smelters or nuclear reactors going 10,000 years ago, and that's a lot of extra heat. The air in your garage is constantly in a state of chemical and energetic flux; the gas mixture changes, the temperature changes, etc. So why don't you stay shut inside when your car engine is running? There's still a chance that there will be a spontaneous increase in oxygen and decrease in carbon monoxide that will balance out the contributions of the exhaust; besides, you could still breathe fine when you first started it up. Two minutes later, why worry? You've already been coughing for a while; that's probably normal. And dizziness is known to come and go - it'll pass this time too. But then, what do you know? You've killed yourself.
    ~Joe

    PS - Since when was the WSJ a trustworthy source of scientific objectivity? Even when it comes to finance, half their content is editorial.

    PPS - Anybody check the credentials of the author? I don't find it very assuring that Googling him leads to a refrigeration business and discovery.org...
    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    Then you won't mind providing proof to back up your claims that the acceptance is due to anything beyond evidence.



    Um, no. Wrong. Very, very wrong. No climate model has *failed* to predict global warming unless massively erroneous figures were used as input (inputs are based on actual measurable physical constants, so you know).

    Oh, and how do you account for the 1988 computer model that *precisely matches* the 20 years of temperature records since?



    Where are you getting your information? The Children's Coloring Book Guide to Climatology?

    We have extensively examined the sun's effects, and there are several satellites out there right now measuring just that.

    Oh, and so you know, the sun's output (as measured DIRECTLY by satellites) hasn't significantly changed in 20 years.



    And I have no love of willful ignorance. Their "expert" is a chemist, not a climatologist, and is no more qualified to critique global warming than he is to perform open-heart surgery.

    On top of that, for all his petty and inaccurate gripes about clouds and models, he neglects to note that a model made in 1988 predicted the subsequent 20 years of global climate change PERFECTLY. We're talking within one percent accuracy. And that was a model run on computers with less power than you cell phone.

    So, if models are wrong, how can they predict the future with such accuracy?

    Mokele

    Relax, pal, you're simply going to pop a vein. I don't wish to argue your faith any further You're quite convinced and I am agnostic at best . . .

    I've been a field biologist for ten years and a commercial diver for scientific institutions for over twenty, know a number of experts on both sides of the coin, and to simply suggest there is no debate to be had is plain ignorance. We argue, everyone argues all of the time . . .

    Pretend I am from Missouri. Show me! That it wasn't a climatologist or specialist enough for your tastes crunching the numbers in the first article I had handy, is tantamount to arguing Luther's view of the Bible as unreliable from that of the Vatican. "Everything must be handled by the clergy." The centuries old Galileo quote still stands. Had he believed in scientific consensus, we would be living in an Aristotelian universe . . .

    There is simply debate to be had and may I suggest a hypertension medication?
    “Sì perché l'autorità dell'opinione di mille nelle scienze non val per una scintilla di ragione di un solo . . ."

    -- Galileo "Biff" Galilei

  5. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Try here.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...2004/12/index/

    It's not the end-all-be-all, but it's the best, most detailed source outside of the primary scientific literature, and all of the maintainers of this blog are climatologists, so they actually know what they're talking about.

    Also, if there are experts on both sides, where are the papers? A 2004 review of all prior literature found a total of zero papers which disputed anthropogenic global warming.

    Once again, you completely misunderstand scientific consensus. Nobody is pressuring anyone. Do you think evolution is flawed because there's a 100% consensus among biologists? Do you think gravity is flawed because there's a 100% consensus? Climatologists have seen the evidence and have the expertise. That non-climatologists buy various arguments to the contrary has no more relevance than that a depressingly large chunk of the public buys into creationism.

    In all honesty, one of the biggest things that swayed my decision on the subject was the similarity. In both evolution and global warming, unqualified members of the public would voice "sound-bite" objections which at best are missing data and at worse display fundamental misunderstandings of the system. These objections ae dealt with, but that is never acknowledged, and the very next time the debate arises, the same objections appear as if they had never been dispatched.

    In *real* science, once someone disproves your point, you stop claiming that point. Hell, that's what any intellectually honest person does. That it doesn't happen with either objections to climate science or evolution is indicative of the political, rather than scientific, basis of those objections.

    Go on, read the link I posted. Think of an issue, then scroll around until you find the relevant links. You'll find everything answered. As such, I expect to see no future argument in this thread than I cannot answer via that link.

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  6. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    2,251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Their "expert" is a chemist, not a climatologist, and is no more qualified to critique global warming than he is to perform open-heart surgery.
    The first link in my second post is from a climatologist.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMFn4D6RH3k

    Here's your peer-reviewed journal articles:
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/yx67836q6007k586/
    http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...osti_id=272455 (actually a book)
    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...ndRobinson.pdf
    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713849842~db=all
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/f5uhmcp0qx4l81dj/
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...20002/art00008
    http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/i2/e028501
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;243/4892/771 (points out large uncertainties in models)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../247/4950/1529
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0607073439.htm (basically a reprint/discussion of a referenced article)

    The past 11,000 years have been mostly stable, and the current peak is by far the largest and fastest deviation.
    To quote you, if I may; "um, no." Take a look at the graph on page 4 (and the rest of the article as well): http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...al_warming.pdf
    Oh actual data, lol.

    And there were plenty more I couldn't see the abstracts or full texts for.
    Z polski y dumny
    Prayer - how to do nothing and still think you're helping.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5aCUNE4Z8
    ^^^Newest vid

  7. #15
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm with PK on this one. He's made some very good points, some I have even raised before in other threads. I think the Global Warming Theory itself is melting away... or is it cooling down for the next 8 years and then that's when the theory kicks in...
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  8. #16
    BigBella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SF, CA
    Posts
    2,972
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey,

    Congratulations. You stole my thunder before I could return from producing more anthropogenic CO2 . . .

    As a scientist myself, I greatly value dissent and I feel that in academia, it has become as rare as hen's teeth; and that, where great amounts -- no, obscene amounts -- of money is to be had (with unltimately little or nothing concrete to show for it), the arena is absolutely rife with fraud. I worked in / for environmental labs for years and results -- especially for high-priced clients were routinely "finessed" -- so much so that I was scarcely able to recognize any of my own work. If practice is as corrupt on the small scale, simply imagine the converse where billions is to be had . . .

    The further boondoggle of carbon credits immediately comes to mind. If there were any doubt that Global Warming (no, "Climate Change" - "Dianetics" in lieu of "Scientology", please) has ascended to the heights of religion and balks at dissent, the True Believers also have their own form of Papal indulgences -- a twenty-first century answer to the "sin-eaters" of the Middle Ages. Nevermind that Gore is intimately involved with one of the companies (I did vote for he and Bubba the first time, much to my chagrin) . . .

    Alas, there seems little room for the doubters and agnostics anymore and nevermind how many sources you come up with to debate; True Believers will simply balk at their bona fides and claim they either have nothing to say as trained fellow scientists or maybes the dissenters have simply pledged the wrong fraternity, or followed the wrong macrobiotic diet to raise such ire . . .


    “Sì perché l'autorità dell'opinione di mille nelle scienze non val per una scintilla di ragione di un solo . . ."

    -- Galileo "Biff" Galilei

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •